Antoine Dubé

[Young Offenders Act, June 16th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity, as the Official Opposition critic for Training and Youth, to question my counterpart, the Secretary of State (Training and Youth). As a courtesy, I had agreed to change my speaking schedule, and I am not sure this will suit the hon. member opposite, because she has given me a golden opportunity to talk about the Youth Service Corps which was the subject of the first part of her speech. I will start with a comment and then ask a few questions.

The employment and learning strategy includes the Youth Service Corps, but I would like to point out that this year, only 2,500 young people across Canada will be able to take advantage of this initiative, while we have 400,000 young people across

Canada who are unemployed. It depends on the age group, because if we look at the 16 to 30 group, as we do in Quebec, we could say there are 600,000 young people who are unemployed.

So 2,500 does not have much impact. When we realize that of the $10,000 spent on each young person in the Youth Service Corps, about $4,000 goes to administration, there is only 6,000 left. It all depends. There are some variants in the pilot projects, and incidentally, in Quebec, pilot projects tend to be found in Liberal ridings, in most cases, although in Laval, there are two Bloc ridings and one Liberal-

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, subsection 14(7) we want to see deleted adds to the conditions imposed on the provinces which want to opt out of the federal financial assistance program and establish their own program, just like the province of Quebec and the Northwest Territories are currently doing.

This provision only adds to the existing conditions and Bill C-28 on financial assistance applies, as you know, to new matters. Pursuant to subsection 14(7), in order to obtain alternative payments, the Minister of Education or the province concerned must satisfy the Minister, by written notice received by the Minister before the beginning of the loan year in question, that, in relation to the matter in question, the provincial student financial assistance plan has substantially the same effect.

It must have the same effect not in general, with some small exemptions, but in every matter in question, as the plan established by this Act and the regulations. We have moved to delete this subsection, because section 14 already has six provisions which, according to a study we ordered and have had reviewed, are enough to provide all the provinces which decide to opt out of Bill C-28 with all the financial assistance they need.

Of course, we think the status quo would have been better, because the previous provisions were very specific. Pursuant to the old legislation, the provinces only needed to convince the minister where part-time student loans and special exemption periods were concerned.

To convince the federal minister, is it not a bit much? A provincial government must convince the federal minister when it needs financial assistance! Sometimes, people think that the federal government gets its money elsewhere, but I want to remind Quebecers that their taxes make up 24 per cent of all federal revenues. We do not take this money away from other provinces; it comes from their own tax dollars sent to Ottawa, which in turn provides financial assistance in an area under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. So, the minister must now be convinced. That was also a requirement under the existing provisions and admittedly these people had adopted a centralist approach. Before, we also had to convince the minister in order to opt out of the program, but only about very limited aspects such as part-time studies and special exemptions, not about loans. Let us not forget that fact.

Why is Quebec so insistent on managing its own financial assistance program? Of course, the program is not perfect and some will never be totally satisfied. Most Quebecers would prefer to see more grants than loans awarded, but, up until now, the federal program was restricted to loans. Grants will now be included, although this has long been the case in Quebec. It would take be too long to enumerate all the features of the Quebec legislation respecting student financial assistance, which was amended in 1990, but, as my colleague from Jonquière said, there are many of them.

Here is one characteristic which does not appear in this bill. For example, instead of imitating the federal legislation where a sword of Damocles hangs over the heads of students with poor grades, Quebec uses the carrot rather than the stick approach by saying that students graduating within the required time benefit from a reduction in their loan payments. We are thus encouraging those who succeed without penalizing or limiting access to those who have satisfactory results in certain fields, but who may go through difficult times because of personal problems, illness or family problems. Troubling events can always happen. According to this bill, the federal minister, through the appropriate authority, must ensure that the student has satisfactory results. In Quebec, it does not work this way. In our province, a scholarship program is already in place, even for part-time students. Therefore, the situation is already very interesting in Quebec.

However, it is a question of principle. Quebec must manage its own student loan program. Why? Because, as we know, every province invests in its own postsecondary education system. So does the federal government, but the stakeholders at that level are the provinces. What happens?

In Canada, for example-although this varies from one province to the next and even from one university to the next-the universities, which by getting less money from the higher levels of government, tend to raise their tuition fees. On average, these fees have increased threefold in all of Canada since 1984. In Quebec, universities have succeeded so far in maintaining lower tuition fees, since access to higher education is very important for Quebecers. This is a principle on which they all agree. There is a consensus on that. There must be access to higher education. Members of Parliament and ordinary citizens often say that people must take control of their own destiny and that students are no exception. They must pay a greater part of the cost of their education.

The example of the United States is often given. True, this is the case in the United States but this is the only western country where tuition fees are higher than in Canada. In France, university education is free, because access to university education is also considered to be important. With this right to opt out, Canada looks more and more like two countries in one. We do not want to prevent English Canada from putting in place a loan system according to its own values and needs, but Quebec has its own concepts on this due to its cultural identity. Quebecers have their own values.

We find it unacceptable that a government which said that it did not want to talk about the Constitution anymore is discreetly amending legislation containing quasi-constitutional provisions. It says one thing and does the exact opposite. It waited till the end of the session to force us to adopt its measure in a hurry even before the Minister of Human Resources Development reveals his action plan for social security reform and before the consultations on this subject take place. Students are considered

to be a distinct group since it has already been decided how they should be treated.

The government could have raised the ceiling on student loans simply by amending that aspect of the existing act, but no. It chose to present a bill that represents a further encroachment in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, namely education.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by the Reform Party's reaction. They did not argue very long against this amendment, that I will read since it is important to understand the situation.

I will not read the amendment as such but what we wanted to delete:

The Minister may give directives to any appropriate authority respecting the exercise or performance of any of its powers, duties or functions under this Act or the regulations, and such directives are binding on the appropriate authority.

That is a good example of the co-operative federalism the parliamentary secretary referred to earlier. A partnership where everything seems to happen in harmony and in a climate of good understanding. If that were true, the minister would not have to include such provisions in this bill.

Let us try to figure out the minister's intentions. First possibility, when they say they want to add that "such directives are binding on the appropriate authority", does it mean that, in the past, appropriate authorities in the provinces did not follow directives or that the student financial assistance system did not work well? I am not talking about Quebec but about the other provinces, because Quebec had exercised the right to opt out, which it wants to preserve.

The fact that they felt the need to include "such directives are binding on the appropriate authority" in the bill, being very strict and everything when it should go without saying, suggests that there are many problems.

I see my colleague from Louis-Hébert, a former teacher, and I give him an example. It is like saying to a young person that under school regulations, smoking is strictly prohibited. And then adding: "Thinking of smoking is strictly prohibited".

They enact regulations upon regulations, which are binding on the authority. When have we ever seen that in a bill? I have read a number of them, more in Quebec than here, but it is very rare. I think it should go without saying. It shows an incredibly authoritarian mentality. The parliamentary secretary talks about partnership and co-operation. I will remind him of certain facts.

Regarding this year's reform of social programs, the minister has postponed his action plan two or three times because the provincial ministers did not agree with him on the agenda. What a good example of co-operation! They cannot even agree on what to include in the agenda because the provinces are so suspicious.

Another example of co-operation is a National Assembly resolution on job training, which was passed unanimously on April 15, I think, telling the federal government not to meddle in education and training matters in Quebec. Even Premier Johnson, a stauncher federalist than his predecessor, voted for this resolution. What a good example of co-operation! Everything is going awfully well with people working in harmony. Only Bloc members see problems.

I just said that it is not only the Bloc members but also all members of Quebec's National Assembly, including those in the Liberal Party, the sister party of the federal Liberals. There should be harmony, yet motions are adopted unanimously in the National Assembly. There should be another solution, as having such an item on the agenda speaks of a lack of confidence. The

past is often a harbinger of the future. Things happen, but why? Always because of the centralizing will of the federal government in an area in which it has no jurisdiction under the Constitution.

Government members are surprised at the Bloc members' reaction. Bloc members complained to the standing committee studying the bill. We insisted on seeing the regulations because the legislation was vague in many respects, and, without a right of appeal, the Minister has a lot of power. We were finally given an overview. I would like to underline here that regulations can stipulate that appropriate authorities may sign entitlement certificates, designate educational institutions, sign entitlement certificates regarding registration confirmations, and so on. It goes a long way.

Confirmation that a student has registered at a university or college is not a national objective. We are now dealing with registration. The borrower signs the entitlement certificate concerning the loan application, the contract-All we got to see was an overview, not even the real regulations.

Other than being excessively centralizing, this bill reflects a will to encroach on provincial jurisdiction. There is a double centralization, but this time from the Minister of Human Resources Development, who wants to control and manage things, through appropriate authorities who are being told in advance that they have to agree to everything the minister says. This is co-operation! How modern can you get? This is unheard of.

This is a power over which the House of Commons and its members would have no control, since it would be delegated to the federal Minister of Human Resources Development. We are concerned by that and this is why we are trying so hard, while there is still time, to convince the members opposite to change their mind on this issue.

We want to convince them before it is too late. The minister gave examples of co-operation and he read a statement from the education minister in Nova Scotia. For those who are not aware of that, three provinces previously benefitted from a trial agreement which served as a basis for this bill. The parliamentary secretary mentioned Nova Scotia.

Yet, based on testimony heard by the Human Rights Development Committee, and I attended every single meeting and consultation of that committee, it appears that Nova Scotia is the worst possible example one could provide, according to the students, because there is a lot of concern in Nova Scotia at present.

The parliamentary secretary also mentioned Alberta. I do not have the newspaper article with me but, yesterday, it was mentioned that many students are worried there as well. Students are concerned about the reduced financial assistance provided by the provinces. They are also concerned about the financing of post-secondary education. And they are concerned about something else too. It is all very well to raise the loan ceiling and bring in scholarships. Indeed, there are some good provisions in this bill, including for part-time students, for single mothers and for others as well, but what we oppose is the government's will to centralize. We object to this show of authority.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, June 16th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-28, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 34 to 46, on page 2 and lines 1 and 2, on page 3, with the following:

"3.(1) The appropriate authority for a province may designate as designated educational institutions any institutions of learning in or outside of Canada that offer courses at a post-secondary school level, or any class of such institutions."

Mr. Speaker, the first amendment moved by the Opposition is meant to improve the bill so that it will become slightly more acceptable to Quebecers and to all Canadians, particularly to young Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, you have already read the motion but I think a second reading would be welcome since all the commotion following the vote made it hard to hear.

It is being proposed that clause 3 of the bill be amended by replacing lines 34 to 46, on page 2, and lines 1 and 2, on page 3, with the following:

"3.(1) The appropriate authority for a province may designate as designated educational institutions any institutions of learning in or outside of Canada that offer courses at a post-secondary school level, or any class of such institutions."

We have moved this amendment because the other amendment made by the bill was divided into two sections whereas, in our view, it defines the role of the appropriate authority for a province.

We would have preferred by far the old section in the existing act where, for the purposes of the present act, the appropriate authority was defined as a person, an organization or any other authority designated as such by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province.

Unfortunately, this was defeated in committee. But it is most appropriate to highlight the change it has brought. Until the bill is enacted, designation of the appropriate authority is made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province concerned, that is by the province's Minister of Education.

What is new here is that the designation would be made by the federal minister designated by the Governor in Council. It says "the Minister" because ministerial structures are undergoing so many changes that it is preferable not to say which minister. But, in this case, it is the Minister of Human Resources Development.

This means that, ultimately, our federal Minister of Human Resources Development will become almost a federal minister of education. I wish to remind this House once more-as I did during first reading-that, under the Constitution, education is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It is important to keep this in mind.

What in fact have we just learned? That the appropriate authority for the province will be designated by the federal minister in order to accomplish two things essentially: first, to designate or not to designate post-secondary institutions in or outside of Canada and, second, to deliver eligibility certificates to students entitled to federal financial assistance.

In my view, designating institutions and delivering eligibility certificates are definitely two educational matters, the responsability for which normally belongs to the provinces.

It is becoming increasingly clear that there are two nations in this country. Some provinces do not mind much that a federal minister would be responsible for educational matters. However, education is very precious to Quebec as it is at the very root of the development of our culture and our identity. We are witnessing another attempt by the government to interfere in an area of provincial jurisdiction.

I would like to remind the House that, during the election campaign, the Liberal members and the Prime Minister himself said that they would not talk about the Constitution. This was reassuring for some maybe, but what is happening in reality?

They say they do not want to talk about it, but they are almost changing the Constitution through administrative agreements, by increasing the role of a federal minister in the field of education. As far as the Official Opposition is concerned, we would have preferred them to talk about the Constitution and we would have hoped that the present government would not go against the spirit of the Constitution, at least in the field of education.

How must we interpret such a strong desire on the part of the federal government, on the part of the Minister of Human Resources Development, for that minister to be the one who designates the appropriate authority from now on? There is a connection with the employment and learning strategy that he himself announced on April 15, and student loans can now be seen to be the fourth element of that strategy.

This is the first piece of legislation put forward by the government which relates to this employment and learning strategy. That is a new term, a play on words: learning is essentially education. We believe that behind this aspect of the strategy-and this is reflected in the press release-the government is barely hiding the fact that it wants to impose on the provinces national, meaning Canadian, standards of education.

From Quebec's standpoint, from the Official Opposition's standpoint, that is unacceptable. For us, what is national applies to Québec, to the nation of Québec, and the concept of "Canadian standards" flies in the face of the attachment of the people of Québec to their culture, to their education. That is why the members of the Committee, with the help of other members, fought relentlessly against this will to centralize.

But, since there are only a few hours left, we have to recognize that we failed to make the government back down. I would like to point out other centralizing initiatives. There is the one that I have just talked about, but there is another one. The federal government not only interferes with provincial jurisdictions, it gives itself increased discretionary authority, an authority which is almost without precedent in that a minister will be able to intervene, to manage by regulation. And that is quite important because we see what role he has in mind for the appropriate authority.

The second amendment is also about this, but the appropriate authority will play a key role and it will be completely controlled by the minister himself without any right of appeal. At least, the bill makes no mention of a right of appeal. Maybe the regulations will, but when one makes a law, one must foresee all the possibilities, even changes of minister, even changes of government.

In a democratic society, a law must be as clear and precise as possible, especially in areas like education, which lends itself to conflicting interpretations, to hesitations, to pulling and tugging, all of which is detrimental to both levels of government.

I think that Quebecers and Canadians-when the Prime Minister was saying that he did not want to hear any talk about the Constitution, that was not quite it-want to avoid duplication, having two governments that want to do the same thing in the same fields, when there is so much to be done in terms of jobs and economic development.

We see a government that wants to reduce its funding in the fields of health care, social services, education and postsecondary education. Yet, while it is reducing its financial contribution, it is increasing its desire to control, its desire to run everything from Ottawa, in a field that Quebec jealously guards: education.

Education is a major portfolio, it is important in defining an employment strategy, it is important for the future of young people and for the entire community.

[Mil Davie, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the Prime Minister as the MIL Davie workers have been waiting to hear from him since his election campaign visit.

Does the Prime Minister not admit that, while Quebec was rationalizing its shipyards, the federal government itself compounded the Lévis shipyard's difficulties by continuing to support Eastern shipyards and by building from scratch, at a cost of tens of millions of dollars, the new Bull Arm shipyard in Newfoundland, as part of the Hibernia project?

[Mil Davie, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

According to an analysis by the MIL Davie survival committee, this Quebec shipyard received only 8 per cent of shipbuilding contracts awarded by Ottawa in Eastern Canada since 1986. After submitting a business plan to the government, MIL Davie is still waiting for an answer regarding the project to build a new ferry for the Magdalen Islands.

Given the underrepresentation of MIL Davie in federal contracts since 1986, does the Prime Minister admit that the federal government itself put the shipyard in a difficult position and that one way to correct the situation would be to award the ferry construction contract to this company immediately?

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the member usually asks questions that are, I will not say devious, but certainly clever from his point of view.

Let me repeat: no, the purpose of the motion is not to abolish the Senate. It concerns budget votes. I think we have the right to say, to estimate, to declare that the amounts voted for the Senate are too high. That is why we are expressing such an opinion.

A member of Parliament should, among other things, reflect the opinion of his constituents. I mentioned certain opinions, more particularly those of young Quebecers. Members from Quebec are here to say to the other side of the House: "Here is what Quebec thinks, here is what Quebecers think of this situation". That is the long and the short of it.

I think my time is up, but I feel any member should share my concern, he should find ways to attract young people to politics. I think we should propose alternatives to young people so that they get interested in the public life. Therefore, any member should be open to discussion on changes, even if these changes affect something that he considers to be very important today.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to be surprised. The questions and comments of my colleague from the Reform Party express a particular point of view.

We have a debt of over $500 billion. In the six months I have been in this place, I have heard almost every day Reform Party members say that we must cut our expenses, that the way we are overspending does not make sense. On that I agree with you. We have to find ways to reduce expenditures.

What we must consider today is not the abolition of the Senate, but rather the funds requested by the Senate. Until there is a referendum on sovereignty and until the majority of Quebec-

ers support this idea, it is obvious that-since we are paying 24 per cent of taxes-we must protect the interests of Quebec.

Today, we are not requesting the Senate's abolition. We only oppose the funds allocated to it. We feel that, in these very tough economic times, these funds should be reduced. I am very surprised that Reform Party members do not agree with a measure aimed at reducing expenditures in Canada.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

I will not ask the hon. Speaker of the House to take part into this exercice because of his parliamentary responsibilities.

The young people I consulted did not know that senators represented ridings, just like MPs. They did not know that. How can we blame them since I am convinced that adults themselves would not know any better. I must admit that I myself could absolutely not say which senator is representing my riding. It is not obvious. Perhaps I should have done some research but I realize after listening to the last speaker that I cannot tell the name of the senator who, among 21 others, is representing me. I did not have to do this research but I must say that she never called or dropped by.

Nevertheless, how could we blame young people for not knowing their senators' names?

Young people wonder how unelected senators can block bills like the GST. Remember that big debate. They blocked the drug patent bill, and once again very recently, we have the example of Bill C-18. The House of Commons and this government proposed postponing consultations on redrawing the electoral maps. The bill went to the Senate and the Senate asked us to reconsider our position. That is not the issue today, but we realize that it is a source of delay which slows down the work of the House of Commons.

You know, this federal system is already complicated for Quebecers. They already see it as double representation and duplication. I will not take you through this whole scenario again, but you see that the Senate duplicates what the House of Commons is doing. The triple E was mentioned, but I see it as a threefold exercise of political power and you can understand that young people, who already find it difficult to be interested in politics in this state of affairs, find this situation triply complicated and even more repulsive.

The Senate should act as a social conscience, but how can it play this role when senators are appointed by political parties and constantly surrounded by lobbyists. Some senators even sit on the boards of private companies. The various possible conflicts of interest are not considered. What about openness? Furthermore, senators now represent two political parties. Furthermore, the majority of senators currently belong to two political parties, one of which has almost been wiped out in the House of Commons. How can we explain such a situation to a young person interested in politics and tell him that the Senate is open to the future, when, in fact, the exact opposite is closer to the truth. I personally have difficulty explaining that situation, and I think it is also the case for any member of this House, regardless of the region which he or she represents, even outside Quebec. How can we claim that senators are representative of the different regions of Quebec and Canada when other political parties are present in those regions?

In the minute that I have left, I simply want to remind everyone of the extremely difficult context in which young Canadians and Quebecers find themselves right now. Last year, Gilles Lesage, who is a journalist for the daily Le Soleil , referred to the Senate as a nuisance costing $50 million a year. This comment was not made by a politician, but by a journalist, an editorialist.

Remember the debate held last July, when it was thought that Quebecers and Canadians were on holidays and that they would not notice anything. Senators wanted to vote themselves a futher $6,000 allowance.

Our young people see that senators have very good pension plans and working conditions, while they themselves are unemployed and worried about their future. Under the circumstances, is it really a surprise that a resolution from a group of young people interested in politics proposed, at the beginning of February, that the Senate be abolished. I certainly can understand them.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity as the member for Lévis and above all as the official opposition critic for training and youth to report on consultations I have had carried out with young Quebecers concerning the Senate. They have been most revealing.

Let me explain the context of those consultations. Last February, young Quebecers participated in a youth Parliament experiment. I noticed that one of the motions passed as a matter of priority concerned the abolition of the Senate. I found that concern interesting and, later on, asked a few young assistants to help me with a survey of young people on that issue. I feel that my findings make a suitable follow-up to remarks made by the hon. member for Frontenac on the point of view of senior citizens in his riding.

What do young people think? I asked them first of all what they thought of people in the Senate. My first finding is that they do not know what the Senate is all about. Most of them do not know what it is. Very few of them know. I will quote the answer, such as it was, that they gave: "It is a room full of older people who cost a lot of money to the taxpayers and whose work does not appear to be useful, in the eyes of young people". Who could give even an approximate number of senators without counting the empty seats in the Upper House? The vast majority of young people, almost all of them, did not know that there were 104 senators. As for determining the composition and the role of that other place, we can only get an answer by referring to the Constitution.

A second question that was raised was: "But who elects these 104 people?"

These young people wondered, since these are not elected people, how they can get involved in various debates, supposedly as representatives of the Canadian citizens.

In Quebec, for young people as well as older people who are familiar with the Senate and have read about it, such as young people who are studying political science or history, the Senate is the Mecca of patronage, with members from God knows where, but who surely have good friends in high places. Some young people believe that, once they have been appointed, senators are the people of Canada who benefit from the best job security, because we all remember that the age limit in the Senate is 75.

The job situation today in Canada as well as in Quebec is a precarious one for young people. To them, job security is an unfamiliar concept. According to Statistics Canada, the unemployment rate for young people between the ages of 15 and 24 is 17.7 per cent. According to the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse in Quebec, 4 out of 10 part-time jobs in Quebec are held by young people under 25; part-time jobs represent 33 per cent of all jobs held by young people between the ages of 15 and 19; and more than two-thirds of young people under 25 who are working get minimum wages.

Therefore we should not be surprised by the perception or position of young people regarding an institution that costs almost $1 million for every session day.

Who are they? Very few young people can identify more than five. Since I cannot give any name, I will somewhat change my speech.

Those who could identify some senators were able to do it by recalling current events. For instance, a very well-known person in Quebec has resigned because she was 75 years old. People finally realized that she was much better known for her novels and the books she had published than for her work in the Senate.

It is the same thing for a senator known for his constitutional law expertise, who had a high-profile role at the time of the Charlottetown Accord. I know that by mentioning that fact only many people in Quebec will be able to identify that person.

Besides, how can we blame young people for not being able to identify the senators? The best one of them could do was to name five out of 104. I have not put my colleagues on this side of the House through this test but I think it would be worth trying to ask new members for instance-because older members might find it easier-how many senators they can name.